State Legislature: Red Flag bill gets committee OK

Sonnenberg: 'I helped kill the Red Flag bill last year and this one is worse'

By Marianne Goodland

Special to The Times

Posted:
02/24/2019 09:37:51 PM MST

Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg

A bill that would allow family members or law enforcement to petition the courts to remove guns and ammunition from people considered to be a threat to themselves or others went through its first committee hearing Feb. 21.

House Bill 1177, known as the "Red Flag" bill cleared the House Judiciary Committee on a 7-4 party-line vote. It moves on to the House Appropriations Committee.

An effort to pass what's known as an "Extreme Risk Protection Order" bill failed in the last days of the 2018 legislative session, with Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, as one of its most ardent opponents. The 2019 version is much worse, he says.

Under the measure, the petitioner must prove, with a preponderance of evidence, that the respondent poses a significant risk to themselves or to others. The court must hold a temporary protection order hearing either that same day or on the next day court is in session. Once the temporary order is issued, a second hearing must be held within 14 days, with legal representation to the respondent provided by the court. If either law enforcement or the family can provide "clear and convincing evidence" that the respondent is a danger, the weapons can be held for up to 364 days while that person seeks treatment.

Once the temporary order is issued, the respondent must turn over all weapons to law enforcement or a federally-licensed firearm dealer.

Advertisement

To get those weapons back, the respondent must prove they are no longer a danger in a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, the highest standard in criminal law.

It's that requirement that has people like Sonnenberg seeing red.

"I helped kill the Red Flag bill last year and this one is worse. This one says a family member or someone who lived with me can come in, petition the court, and the court, on a preponderance of evidence can take my guns. And then I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're wrong. That's guilty until proven innocent," he said.

Another issue for Sonnenberg is that the bill could have the unintended consequence of dissuading people from seeking mental health treatment.

"They won't seek help," nor does the bill have any provisions to help those with mental health issues seek treatment. "This is nothing more than a gun grab" and part of an out-of-state agenda from gun control groups, he added.

In 2018, the Red Flag bill had support from Republicans like Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler, but he testified against the bill on Thursday, telling the committee that he does not support the bill's provisions that put the burden of proof on the respondent. He also asked that the bill contain a two-year sunset, which would allow lawmakers to review the law in two years to determine if the law has been effective and what changes might be made.

Testifying in favor in Thursday's hearing: Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock, whose deputy Zack Parrish was ambushed by a veteran with PTSD on New Year's Eve, 2017, as well as Sheriff Joe Pelle of Boulder, whose son, a Douglas County deputy, also was shot in the same incident that killed Parrish. Both said the protective order would save lives, including those of law enforcement officers.

Former U.S. Attorney John Walsh said he believes the bill is constitutional. That's a view also shared by Democratic Attorney General Phil Weiser, who sent a letter to the committee that advocated for the measure. The committee also heard from witnesses who've lived through crises with mentally ill family members, including those who have murdered others or committed suicide.

One woman testified that her son has attempted suicide several times - including with a gun - but that the state's two mental hospitals lacks beds that would help people like him.

"I don't kid myself that any of you cares whether my son lives or dies. But this bill will give families like mine a tool to keep them safe, even when it's to keep them safe from themselves," the woman said.

High school student Maren Strother of Denver told the committee she's a part of the active shooter drill generation: "I am here because I learned how to hide in the same room where I learned to read and write."

The day of the shooting at the Marjory Stoneman High School in Parkland, Florida, one year ago, Strother said she cried all the way home, feeling scared and helpless. But she's hopeful that Colorado will be the next state to pass a Red Flag bill, which she called a step in the right direction.

Dudley Brown of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners was among several dozen testifying against the bill. Brown promised a legal challenge should the bill be signed into law. Red Flag laws in other states have lacked due process and target only guns, Brown said, not the other things people use to attack others, like knives, baseball bats or even a school bus or airplane.

John Anderson, a former police officer with Castle Rock, said the bill would turn Colorado into a police state and warned that it would lead to SWAT officers breaking down peoples' doors. Use the statutes already in place, Anderson told the committee.

Alexandra Garza of the National Rifle Association testified that the organization has concerns about the bill's due process provisions and that the bill allows too broad a group of people to file for those protection orders. Limiting the orders to law enforcement would be a favorable addition to the bill, she said.

The bill was amended late Thursday night to ensure that the respondent is notified in writing that they are being provided with legal counsel. Another amendment would ensure that a concealed carry permit would also be returned when the firearms are returned, and that all weapons had to be returned within three days of the end of the order.

House Majority Leader Alec Garnett of Denver, one of the bill's sponsors, pledged to work with other lawmakers on language dealing with the reissuance of a concealed permit, to cover the period of time that the permit was not in use. They also added language to require law enforcement to return the weapons in the condition in which they were seized, although that raised concerns for Republican Rep. Hugh McKean of Loveland, who called it an "almost impossible task."

A bill introduced this week would allow farm stands to operate on any size land regardless of whether or not the land is zoned agricultural. Democratic Rep. Jeni Arndt of Fort Collins is the sponsor of House Bill 1191.

According to the bill, and under current law, in many parts of the state farm stands cannot operate if it is on a site that is smaller than a certain acreage size. Arndt's bill removes that restriction by allowing a "uniform and consistent permission" for a farm stand to operate on a "principle use" site, which under the bill is defined as a parcel of property under which a business operates as its principal use of that property. Local governments can pass ordinances or resolutions to facilitate the law but cannot limit the size.

The bill has been assigned to the House Rural Affairs & Agriculture Committee. No hearing date has yet been set.

Article Comments

We reserve the right to remove any comment that violates our ground rules, is spammy, NSFW, defamatory, rude, reckless to the community, etc.

We expect everyone to be respectful of other commenters. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's no need to act like a jerk.

Use your own words (don't copy and paste from elsewhere), be honest and don't pretend to be someone (or something) you're not.

Our commenting section is self-policing, so if you see a comment that violates our ground rules, flag it (mouse over to the far right of the commenter's name until you see the flag symbol and click that), then we'll review it.